I have finished reading “The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman. It describes American society and economy. It’s an encouraging book.
“Liberals are those who believe in institutions that limit inequality and injustice.”
“You’re a liberal, whether you know it or not, if you believe that the United States should have universal health care.”
“The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman, p.268.
I highly recommend you steer clear of Liberty and Tyranny. I don’t understand why you’re reading polemics like that.
Krugman’s book was probably a decent read, but undoubtedly slanted and biased. The Conscience of a Liberal is also the title of his NY Times blog, which I read from time to time. But Krugman occasionally devolves into liberal platitudes, which really just fill up space and do little to persuade.
It’s worth noting that former Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1960 ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ is the book that likely spawned both Krugman and Levin’s books, among others. The book is a concise read on a conservative (maybe more libertarian) philosophy and not as much on culture. If your looking for a book on modern day culture and politics this is likely not what your looking for.
"The book is a concise read on a conservative (maybe more libertarian) philosophy . . . . "
Am I right in thinking that “libertarian” is not “liberal” but what is called “laissez-faire” fundamentalism in economic terms?
In the economic realm, libertarianism is much more in favor of laissez faire than government interaction. The term fundamentalism would be rejected by some and embraced by others. In economics it would be best associated with Milton Friedman, who wikipedia tells me was an advisor to the Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign. Which makes it no surprise that Paul Krugman, an economist himself, would choose to write a similar book with contrasting political positions.
"By the early 1960s, [Milton] Friedman had made almost a complete return to free-market fundamentalism, arguing that even the Great Depression was caused not by market failure but by government failure. . . . Free-market economists began rejecting not just the New Deal, but the reforms of the Progressive Era, suggesting that even such government actions as policing food and drug safety were unjustified. And Friedman associated himself with the Goldwater campaign. "
“The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman, p.116.
Paul Krugman thinks that one of the origins of neoconservative can be traced to Chicago economists led by Milton Friedman. He mentions the relationship between Friedman and Goldwater in his book. Thank you for your information, Mattc.
I thought Liberals were open-minded, Commasplice? Everyone, don’t be afraid of Mark Levin’s book just because of what some might say. He’s really not scary, and there is nothing wrong with being a Conservative, despite what Liberals want you to think. And IT IS worth more than the paper it’s printed on.
@Jillisa93 I don’t recommend Levin’s book for the same reasons I wouldn’t recommend a book by Keith Olbermann or Carville . . . it’s bound to be nothing but political hackery written for a specific agenda. You’re unlikely to learn anything of value from Levin.
“By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater’s libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life.”
Is “libertarianism” against or unrelated to what is called “the religious right?”
Libertarian comes from the word “liberty.” A libertarian at his/her most extreme approaches anarchy. So I would think a libertarian would be against the religious right on any issues where the religious right seeks to limit personal choice and individuality - e.g., abortion (woman’s choice), gay rights (let them get married if they want to), etc.
I am sure better explanations can be found as this is probably a pretty broad definition of Libertarianism. This link is helpful: Libertarian | encyclopedia article by TheFreeDictionary
I am not totally educated on the totality of the Libertarians’ thinking. The “religious right” (whatever that label means) would not support the notion that you can live however you want so long as others are allowed the same freedoms. “I have the right to murder, steal, do drugs or do whatever, as long as I give you the same right.” Most would say that is ridiculous. To answer the question, “libertarianism” and the “religious right” are unrelated, in my opinion.